First and foremost, this is not in any way meant to dilute criticism or condemnation directed at the Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Mike Nifong of the infamous "2006 Duke University lacrosse case."
I would simply ask in witnessing the outrage over the prosecutorial misconduct in that case, where is the outrage over the now more than 200 cases of wrongful prosecution overturned by post-conviction DNA testing that the Innocence Project has uncovered? And why are there so many faces of men of color found in these cases?
Please listen to the Bill Moyers Journal interview with Jerry Miller, the 200th person exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing, "Jerry Miller and the Innocence Project."
Shouldn't we be ashamed of our lack of outrage in Jerry Miller's case?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
George W., you are no Harry Truman
Few things have been as disturbing as the president's now implacable belief - which he has been decreeing with increased frequency -- that he is the modern-day Harry Truman, fighting a necessary war even in the face of widespread opposition from weak and blind people in his own country and around the world, but that he is destined to be vindicated by history. And, as he sees it, the more he fights against anti-war headwinds and the bolder he is in the risks he takes, the greater his vindication will be.- Glenn Greenwald
Excerpted from A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency
in Greenwald's post, Iran:The Next War?
on The Huffington Post
To get perspective on why George W. is no Harry Truman, listen to the BBC World Service's "Winning the Peace", a series of four programs in which Former High Representative of Bosnia, Lord Ashdown, "looks at the role of the international community in ending conflicts and rebuilding countries." Paddy Ashdown "looks at cases where occupation has succeeded and where it has failed, and what lessons there are for the future."
The first of the four is of particular interest:
Part One: Germany after the War
We should be ashamed of Cheney
Vice President Cheney is a perfect example of the type of despotic leader our constitution was SUPPOSED to guard against. The fact that he still retains a powerful position in our government is something we the people should be ashamed of.
Are we so fearful and weak that we can be led around like a herd of frightened sheep by an insanely secretive tryant?
The executive branch of our government is supposed to manage and lead according to the laws passed by the legislative branch. These laws are written through a deliberative process representative of the will of the people. These deliberations are slowed by the process itself to dampen the swings of popular opinion. The judicial branch is there to insure that we follow the law.
This whole structure was put in place because our founders knew from experience that power unfettered by law and residing in an unbridled executive was (and is) the source of practically all of the evil that governments bring to our world. And much of that evil comes from self-righteous leaders who tell us they know best what is good for us or some variation of "If you knew what I know, you wouldn't question what I have done for you/am doing for you/am about to do for you. But I can't tell you what I know, because then I wouldn't be able to do it."
What is now coming to light are things done in our name that are so horrific that we should be ashamed. These things continue to this day, and they are evil.
The problem is that there is such a long trail of horrific things done in our name that the current set of bastards can literally ask, "What are you complaining about? This is nothing new. What do you think was done at Wounded Knee?"
We should not cower from responding. From our Christian heritage, we know the answer. It is redemption. This is combining repentance with conversion ... renouncing the past and then doing what love commands ... for God is love.
But we have no one calling us to "oughtness" born of love ... what we ought to be ... out of our "isness" ... what we are.
It's a shame.
Are we so fearful and weak that we can be led around like a herd of frightened sheep by an insanely secretive tryant?
The executive branch of our government is supposed to manage and lead according to the laws passed by the legislative branch. These laws are written through a deliberative process representative of the will of the people. These deliberations are slowed by the process itself to dampen the swings of popular opinion. The judicial branch is there to insure that we follow the law.
This whole structure was put in place because our founders knew from experience that power unfettered by law and residing in an unbridled executive was (and is) the source of practically all of the evil that governments bring to our world. And much of that evil comes from self-righteous leaders who tell us they know best what is good for us or some variation of "If you knew what I know, you wouldn't question what I have done for you/am doing for you/am about to do for you. But I can't tell you what I know, because then I wouldn't be able to do it."
What is now coming to light are things done in our name that are so horrific that we should be ashamed. These things continue to this day, and they are evil.
The problem is that there is such a long trail of horrific things done in our name that the current set of bastards can literally ask, "What are you complaining about? This is nothing new. What do you think was done at Wounded Knee?"
We should not cower from responding. From our Christian heritage, we know the answer. It is redemption. This is combining repentance with conversion ... renouncing the past and then doing what love commands ... for God is love.
But we have no one calling us to "oughtness" born of love ... what we ought to be ... out of our "isness" ... what we are.
It's a shame.
Reference:
Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power
By Barton Gellman and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 25, 2007
Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power
By Barton Gellman and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Agent Orange, dioxin, and Vietnam
Friday's—June 22, 2007— program on Democracy Now was about the lawsuit working its way through the U.S. courts for which "earlier this week, a delegation of Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange traveled to New York. Some testified in federal court. They’re suing over three dozen chemical companies for manufacturing the toxin. The list of companies being sued includes Dow Chemical and Monsanto." -From the transcript of the program, Vietnamese Delegation in U.S. to Sue Chemical Companies for Ongoing Effects of Agent Orange.
It is hard to imagine anyone—any person, group, organization, nation— doing anything this horrific ... knowing the damage the poison—dioxin—would cause. Having to acknowledge that my country DID do this ... on purpose ... and now the bastards responsible for making the choices that allowed it to happen, paid for it to happen, received payment for it to happen, performed its happening ... these bastards are trying to shirk responsibility?
When does the stink of our elite ruling class finally cause we the people to gag?
A thought ...
I went to Marc's Place last night, billed as "a monthly coffeehouse of music, poetry, and discussion inspired by the memory of Coalition Member Marc Shapiro." (Note: The "Coalition" is the Central Jersey Coalition Against Endless War whose website is www.againstendlesswar.org.) It was a program of music, poetry, and discussion. Ordinary people spent the evening together openly, publicly ... freely ... sharing our concerns about where our leaders have taken us as a country. This is the real strength of our nation.
And it isn't just people on the left of the political spectrum ... it's people all over the place, doing all sorts of stuff ... from a country music bar in Austin, Texas, to a mid-week social at the Baptist Church in Lincoln, Nebraska, to a union picnic in Seattle, to an annual stock holders meeting in Chicago, to a jazz club in Greenwich Village ... people in these United States are doing their thing.
Another thought ...
The greed of our ruling class is ruining us ... because they have no idea of what makes our nation great. They think it is the wealth and power that has been created ... when it is the motivation, energy and labor of the people that creates ... the true source of wealth and power.
It is hard to imagine anyone—any person, group, organization, nation— doing anything this horrific ... knowing the damage the poison—dioxin—would cause. Having to acknowledge that my country DID do this ... on purpose ... and now the bastards responsible for making the choices that allowed it to happen, paid for it to happen, received payment for it to happen, performed its happening ... these bastards are trying to shirk responsibility?
When does the stink of our elite ruling class finally cause we the people to gag?
A thought ...
I went to Marc's Place last night, billed as "a monthly coffeehouse of music, poetry, and discussion inspired by the memory of Coalition Member Marc Shapiro." (Note: The "Coalition" is the Central Jersey Coalition Against Endless War whose website is www.againstendlesswar.org.) It was a program of music, poetry, and discussion. Ordinary people spent the evening together openly, publicly ... freely ... sharing our concerns about where our leaders have taken us as a country. This is the real strength of our nation.
And it isn't just people on the left of the political spectrum ... it's people all over the place, doing all sorts of stuff ... from a country music bar in Austin, Texas, to a mid-week social at the Baptist Church in Lincoln, Nebraska, to a union picnic in Seattle, to an annual stock holders meeting in Chicago, to a jazz club in Greenwich Village ... people in these United States are doing their thing.
Another thought ...
The greed of our ruling class is ruining us ... because they have no idea of what makes our nation great. They think it is the wealth and power that has been created ... when it is the motivation, energy and labor of the people that creates ... the true source of wealth and power.
Bloomberg? Unity08?
The "normal" political two party system here in the United States is unraveling.
It is time for we the people to take our country back and put an end to the fearmongering vs. pork barrel politics that only benefits politicians and the special interests they serve. We have enough wealth and power as a nation to be secure from foreign coercion AND have a solid foundation of heathcare, education, and affordable housing for our people from full employment.
We need competent managers in our executive branches, rational skeptics in our legislative branches, and principled judges in our judicial branches. In other words, we need another revolution ... at the ballot box.
This is the context within which the potential "Bloomberg For President" campaign plays out.
It isn't just whether or not Bloomberg can win the presidency, it is the setting in motion of real change. Remember Goldwater in 1964? That campaign led straight to Reagan ... the problem with the Republicans being that with the Peter Principle in full bloom (yes, I get the pun) the Republicans produced George W. Bush, the 43rd president of these United States.
Personally—as an aside—if Hillary dillary gets the Democrats' nomination, I would vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat.
And with that in mind, I will be checking out the Unity08 political action campaign.
It is time for we the people to take our country back and put an end to the fearmongering vs. pork barrel politics that only benefits politicians and the special interests they serve. We have enough wealth and power as a nation to be secure from foreign coercion AND have a solid foundation of heathcare, education, and affordable housing for our people from full employment.
We need competent managers in our executive branches, rational skeptics in our legislative branches, and principled judges in our judicial branches. In other words, we need another revolution ... at the ballot box.
This is the context within which the potential "Bloomberg For President" campaign plays out.
It isn't just whether or not Bloomberg can win the presidency, it is the setting in motion of real change. Remember Goldwater in 1964? That campaign led straight to Reagan ... the problem with the Republicans being that with the Peter Principle in full bloom (yes, I get the pun) the Republicans produced George W. Bush, the 43rd president of these United States.
Personally—as an aside—if Hillary dillary gets the Democrats' nomination, I would vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat.
And with that in mind, I will be checking out the Unity08 political action campaign.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Iraq: It's a fool's errand
Retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who in 2003 was among the first to call public attention to the relatively small size of the U.S. invasion force, said that the new operation shows how outnumbered U.S. troops remain. "Why would we think that a temporary presence of 30,000 additional combat troops in a giant city would change the dynamics of a bitter civil war?" he said in an interview yesterday. "It's a fool's errand." (Emphasis added.)
Iraq Push Revives Criticism of Force Size
by Thomas E. Ricks
Saturday, June 23, 2007
The Washington Post
Back on April 27 Bill Moyers interviewed Jon Stewart from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central on the Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. Access the archived Bill Moyers program here: Jon Stewart, April 27, 2007, and here's an excerpt it with a clip from the Daily Show with jon Stewart:
Another excerpt:CLIP: THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART
JON STEWART: Bush had come mainly to discuss the war spending bill, recently passed by the Democratic Congress which gives the president all the funding he desires for the troop surge, but ties the funding to a definite date for withdrawal of the troops. And you won't believe what the president thinks of that idea.
GEORGE W. BUSH: �pushing legislation that would undercut our troops just as we're beginning to make progress in Baghdad.
JON STEWART: Oooh. We're just beginning to make it ohh they just pulled the rug to d'oh, it's just happening now! You know, I seem to remember, we've been making progress for quite some time now.
GEORGE W. BUSH: That's progress. And it's important progress, and it's an important part of our strategy to win in Iraq.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Iraq has made incredible political progress.
GEORGE W. BUSH: The Iraqis are making inspiring progress.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Iraq is making incredible political progress.
GEORGE W. BUSH: I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We're making progress.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We're making steady progress.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We're making progress. It's slowly but surely making progress.
GEORGE W. BUSH: In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
JON STEWART: Wait a minute! Wait a minute! I figured this out. I know what's wrong with what we've done in Iraq. We've been following time as it goes forward. What a classic mistake. Linear time is so pre-9-11.
END CLIP: THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART
Iraq ... it's a fool's errand.JON STEWART: But war that hasn't affected us here, in the way that you would imagine a five-year war would affect a country. I think that's why they're so really — here's the disconnect. It's sort of this odd and I've always had this problem with the rationality of it. That the President says, "We are in the fight for a way of life. This is the greatest battle of our generation, and of the generations to come. "And, so what I'm going to do is you know, Iraq has to be won, or our way of life ends, and our children and our children's children all suffer. So, what I'm gonna do is send 10,000 more troops to Baghdad."
So, there's a disconnect there between — you're telling me this is fight of our generation, and you're going to increase troops by 10 percent. And that's gonna do it. I'm sure what he would like to do is send 400,000 more troops there, but he can't, because he doesn't have them. And the way to get that would be to institute a draft. And the minute you do that, suddenly the country's not so damn busy anymore. And then they really fight back, and then the whole thing falls apart. So, they have a really delicate balance to walk between keeping us relatively fearful, but not so fearful that we stop what we're doing and really examine how it is that they've been waging this.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Lead paint and red engines
When we had the opportunity to create rational regulations ... like, let's not poison each other ... literally ... in trade agreements in exchange for access to our (the United States) burgeoning marketplace ... our leaders chose greed over reason.
Well, our international finance globalist leaders. We used to call them Rockefeller Republicans. Now they are better known as Clinton Democrats. Hope that's not too nuanced for you to understand ... Silly Billy and Hillary dillary selling us out to be elected president.
What better example of what happened then the latest recall of the children's toy—the Thomas the Tank red engine—for lead in its paint. ( Note: See "The Little Engine That Could Poison" by Christian Warren on today's—Friday, June 22, 2007—OpEd page of the NY Times.)
There are some old, wise metaphors ... one is ... "Closing the barn doors AFTER the horse has gone is not a solution for keeping a horse."
Why do you think our leaders gave away our real wealth ... our labor market? They didn't get anything of equal value for us in return. Oh ... that's right ... they made THEMSELVES rich and powerful. In the short term we are converting to a banana republic with a chasm between the rich few and the impoverished many.
Folks, the horse has left the barn.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Are you kidding me? ... Blair?
After more than six years of failed policy on the Israeli-Palestine issue, the Bush Administration is proposing to anoint soon-to-be ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a special envoy to the Middle East to help Fatah's Palestine president Mahmoud Abbas "build the institutions and apparatus fro a viable state." ("U.S. Is Urging Blair to Be Lead Mideast Envoy" by Helene Cooper, NY Times, June 21, 2007)
Too little, too late.
Actually, it's the kiss of death.
The Taliban are attacking Kabul in Afghanistan. Hamas has driven Fatah out of Gaza and the Israeli's are attacking Hamas. Lebanon is teetering on the abyss of further violence in and around the Palestinian refugee camps. The violence in Iraq is spreading outside Baghdad in response to our "squeeze the water balloon" aka "whack-a-mole" surge.
And we are going to appoint Tony Blair as a white knight to ride to our rescue?
Connie Rice, you are kidding me, aren't you?
Too little, too late.
Actually, it's the kiss of death.
The Taliban are attacking Kabul in Afghanistan. Hamas has driven Fatah out of Gaza and the Israeli's are attacking Hamas. Lebanon is teetering on the abyss of further violence in and around the Palestinian refugee camps. The violence in Iraq is spreading outside Baghdad in response to our "squeeze the water balloon" aka "whack-a-mole" surge.
And we are going to appoint Tony Blair as a white knight to ride to our rescue?
Connie Rice, you are kidding me, aren't you?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The least among us ...
From the asthmatic child gasping for breath in an urban ghetto to the senior citizen lying in his or her urine and feces in a nursing home ... we as a country have abandoned the principle that a society is judged not by how we treat the greatest, but how we treat the least among us.
Let us ask ourselves ...
If a nation as great and as strong—as wealthy and powerful—as ours ... with principles of freedom, justice, fairness, and compassion to guide us ... comes to where we are today ... how did we come to this?
And if we have descended into the abyss of greed and self-interest—with more than enough wealth to have a solid foundation for everyone and more than enough power to be safe from outside coercion—what hope is there for any society to become what we believe we ought to be?
Where are our prophets to call us to oughtness?
Note: Written after reading Bob Herbert's column, "When Dollars Trump Compassion", in today's—Tuesday, June 19, 2007—NY Times.
Let us ask ourselves ...
If a nation as great and as strong—as wealthy and powerful—as ours ... with principles of freedom, justice, fairness, and compassion to guide us ... comes to where we are today ... how did we come to this?
And if we have descended into the abyss of greed and self-interest—with more than enough wealth to have a solid foundation for everyone and more than enough power to be safe from outside coercion—what hope is there for any society to become what we believe we ought to be?
Where are our prophets to call us to oughtness?
Note: Written after reading Bob Herbert's column, "When Dollars Trump Compassion", in today's—Tuesday, June 19, 2007—NY Times.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Iraq, come Septmber ...
Please read Iraq: The Battle of September Has Already Begun by Arianna Huffington, posted June 17, 2007, on www.huffingtonpost.com.
Then get Bill Moyers' podcast, "Buying the War", from iTunes ... it's free ... and listen to it. Or you can simply go to the PBS website archive and watch and listen to it, or download the transcript and read it. It was broadcast on April 25.
Then get Bill Moyers' podcast, "Buying the War", from iTunes ... it's free ... and listen to it. Or you can simply go to the PBS website archive and watch and listen to it, or download the transcript and read it. It was broadcast on April 25.
Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln wearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner. He was hailed by media stars as a "breathtaking" example of presidential leadership in toppling Saddam Hussein. Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in the press confirmed the White House's claim that the war was won. MSNBC's Chris Matthews declared, "We're all neo-cons now;" NPR's Bob Edwards said, "The war in Iraq is essentially over;" and Fortune magazine's Jeff Birnbaum said, "It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context."
How did the mainstream press get it so wrong? How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 continue to go largely unreported? "What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked. How mainstream journalists suspended skepticism and scrutiny remains an issue of significance that the media has not satisfactorily explored," says Moyers. "How the administration marketed the war to the American people has been well covered, but critical questions remain: How and why did the press buy it, and what does it say about the role of journalists in helping the public sort out fact from propaganda?"
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Globalization is literally killing us!
Please read "FDA Scrutiny Scant In India, China as Drugs Pour Into U.S." by Marc Kaufman in today's--June 17, 2007--WASHINGTON POST.
Then reflect awhile on Bill Clinton's (whom I will call "Silly Billy" in shear derision) globalization schemes whereby he GAVE away our labor, environmental, and food and drug safety rights.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why small "d" democrats consider him a democrat. I know he is registered as a big "D" Democrat ... but those of us who remember Nelson Rockefeller and the tenets of the international finance wing of politics in this country, know that Silly Billy is actually a Rockefeller Republican.
And Hillary dillary is leading in the polling of Democrats? That's because those international finance globalists know they have about a snowball's chance in hell of electing a Republican Party candidate as President in 2008.
Come on, folks! Get a grip. We can take our country back.
We'd better take or country back while we still have something worth saving.
Then reflect awhile on Bill Clinton's (whom I will call "Silly Billy" in shear derision) globalization schemes whereby he GAVE away our labor, environmental, and food and drug safety rights.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why small "d" democrats consider him a democrat. I know he is registered as a big "D" Democrat ... but those of us who remember Nelson Rockefeller and the tenets of the international finance wing of politics in this country, know that Silly Billy is actually a Rockefeller Republican.
And Hillary dillary is leading in the polling of Democrats? That's because those international finance globalists know they have about a snowball's chance in hell of electing a Republican Party candidate as President in 2008.
Come on, folks! Get a grip. We can take our country back.
We'd better take or country back while we still have something worth saving.
Abu Garib and Army Major General Anotnio M. Taguba
Please read THE GENERAL'S REPORT by Seymour M. Hersh in the June 25, 2007 issue of THE NEW YORKER.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh
The stench of my country's evil has reached the nostrils of God.
Our leaders have abandoned the upward struggle in pursuit of oughtness—what we ought to be—based on our founding principles—our core values—for the pursuit of wealth and power.
We have exchanged our birthright for the proverbial bowl of porridge.
Once again the Hand is writing on the wall, "You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."
May God have mercy on the souls of we the people because justice would send us to Hell.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh
“From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable.”
The stench of my country's evil has reached the nostrils of God.
Our leaders have abandoned the upward struggle in pursuit of oughtness—what we ought to be—based on our founding principles—our core values—for the pursuit of wealth and power.
We have exchanged our birthright for the proverbial bowl of porridge.
Once again the Hand is writing on the wall, "You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."
May God have mercy on the souls of we the people because justice would send us to Hell.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine ...
Can we wait for Bush 43 to leave office before we change course as a nation? In nineteen months we may be in such a deep, narrow hole that we won't be able to turn around, let alone get out.
There are consequences to having an arrogant idiot as President of these United States with enough power and wealth to squander that his brilliant handlers haven't reined him in ... yet.
But isn't it evident—to mix metaphors—that our ship of state is headed for the shoals? That we have run out of ocean?
There are consequences to having an arrogant idiot as President of these United States with enough power and wealth to squander that his brilliant handlers haven't reined him in ... yet.
But isn't it evident—to mix metaphors—that our ship of state is headed for the shoals? That we have run out of ocean?
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
The new economics - Post 11
Some questions regarding the family … looking forward ...
Can we assume that the "family unit"—however defined by a society—has become the basic building block of our society?
Can we also assume that we as a society wish to build the best possible society?
Then doesn’t it become obvious fairly quickly that some members/citizens of these United States of America do NOT look upon all families within the boundaries of our nation as members of THEIR society? (Note: Maybe we should be looking at the attitudes that divide us like Christian versus Non-Christian, member of our particular faith versus non-member, and so forth?)
And while we appear to demand that everyone commit to our notion of a basic family to get support, we—as a nation—do NOT support all of these family units at some basic level … and if this is the case, are we not, in fact, weakening our society? Or putting the society at risk to the extent that our families are at risk? On the other hand, if families at risk are not really part of our society …
Just asking, folks, just asking … but it seems pretty A, B, C kind of stuff.
O.K., say we have this family unit thing going for us. Isn’t it necessary to have a system for getting to the family the basic resources this family needs to be a strong and healthy family?
Didn’t we build an economic system from the Great Depression and WWII on that was based on the purchasing power the “normal” wage earner generates being able to provide the basic resources for his/her family? Didn’t this allow the parent who wasn’t the wage earner to tend to the care and nurturing of the family? (Note: Families tend to hav e children.)
And now with the purchasing power of the normal wage earner falling to global standards … (Note: Are global wage standards relative to the care and keeping of a mule?) ... how will the normal family unit acquire the basic resources NECESSARY for maintaining a strong and healthy family ... let alone tend to the care and nurturing of the family?
Maybe we should start by defining a strong and healthy family? Then ask ourselves what are the basic resources necessary to maintain that family?
And shouldn't we ask why our nation's leaders GAVE away OUR wage standards without compensating for the American family's loss in purchasing power? And our environmental standards? And our food safety standards?
More to come.
Can we assume that the "family unit"—however defined by a society—has become the basic building block of our society?
Can we also assume that we as a society wish to build the best possible society?
Then doesn’t it become obvious fairly quickly that some members/citizens of these United States of America do NOT look upon all families within the boundaries of our nation as members of THEIR society? (Note: Maybe we should be looking at the attitudes that divide us like Christian versus Non-Christian, member of our particular faith versus non-member, and so forth?)
And while we appear to demand that everyone commit to our notion of a basic family to get support, we—as a nation—do NOT support all of these family units at some basic level … and if this is the case, are we not, in fact, weakening our society? Or putting the society at risk to the extent that our families are at risk? On the other hand, if families at risk are not really part of our society …
Just asking, folks, just asking … but it seems pretty A, B, C kind of stuff.
O.K., say we have this family unit thing going for us. Isn’t it necessary to have a system for getting to the family the basic resources this family needs to be a strong and healthy family?
Didn’t we build an economic system from the Great Depression and WWII on that was based on the purchasing power the “normal” wage earner generates being able to provide the basic resources for his/her family? Didn’t this allow the parent who wasn’t the wage earner to tend to the care and nurturing of the family? (Note: Families tend to hav e children.)
And now with the purchasing power of the normal wage earner falling to global standards … (Note: Are global wage standards relative to the care and keeping of a mule?) ... how will the normal family unit acquire the basic resources NECESSARY for maintaining a strong and healthy family ... let alone tend to the care and nurturing of the family?
Maybe we should start by defining a strong and healthy family? Then ask ourselves what are the basic resources necessary to maintain that family?
And shouldn't we ask why our nation's leaders GAVE away OUR wage standards without compensating for the American family's loss in purchasing power? And our environmental standards? And our food safety standards?
More to come.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
The New Economics – Post 10
Thoughts looking forward to Labor Day … a ways away.
Some concepts that should be considered by our brilliant economic intelligentsia?:
- Human demand for goods and services cannot keep pace with their supply if human demand depends on the purchasing power provided from wages for human labor. (Note: In today's Westernized economic globalization scheme.)
- The huge fees for predictive analysis and other financial services now being extracted from the economy amount to a huge tax on market transactions of real goods and services.
The combination in this country of (1.) the drop in consumer demand facing us because of the drop in mean family purchasing power based on wages for human labor, and (2.) the drag on the economy by the imposition of financial services fees, portends an economic correction of significant magnitude ahead.
While we conceivably have ways and means to wring the exorbitant financial services fees out of our economic system fairly quickly, we do not have ways and means to efficiently adjust mean family purchasing power without significant social/political upheaval. (Note: We have gone about as far as we can with inflating home property values.) This is one of the problems of Westernized economic globalization in third world countries: there is no efficient mechanism in the touted (and dramatically misnamed) “free” market system to allow the basic unit of society, the family, to efficiently adjust purchasing power as needed to stay afloat in a Western-style (“money” and banking) market.
The United States is now on its way to becoming a banana republic with its chasm between rich and poor. Before we get there, a populist leader will arise to challenge us to alter course. As we go through our next sociopolitical-economic interregnum, China will be observing our course with a hammer-lock on much of the world’s resources and much of our cash.
Fasten your seatbelts, folks. This is going to get interesting.
Some concepts that should be considered by our brilliant economic intelligentsia?:
- Human demand for goods and services cannot keep pace with their supply if human demand depends on the purchasing power provided from wages for human labor. (Note: In today's Westernized economic globalization scheme.)
- The huge fees for predictive analysis and other financial services now being extracted from the economy amount to a huge tax on market transactions of real goods and services.
The combination in this country of (1.) the drop in consumer demand facing us because of the drop in mean family purchasing power based on wages for human labor, and (2.) the drag on the economy by the imposition of financial services fees, portends an economic correction of significant magnitude ahead.
While we conceivably have ways and means to wring the exorbitant financial services fees out of our economic system fairly quickly, we do not have ways and means to efficiently adjust mean family purchasing power without significant social/political upheaval. (Note: We have gone about as far as we can with inflating home property values.) This is one of the problems of Westernized economic globalization in third world countries: there is no efficient mechanism in the touted (and dramatically misnamed) “free” market system to allow the basic unit of society, the family, to efficiently adjust purchasing power as needed to stay afloat in a Western-style (“money” and banking) market.
The United States is now on its way to becoming a banana republic with its chasm between rich and poor. Before we get there, a populist leader will arise to challenge us to alter course. As we go through our next sociopolitical-economic interregnum, China will be observing our course with a hammer-lock on much of the world’s resources and much of our cash.
Fasten your seatbelts, folks. This is going to get interesting.
Monday, June 04, 2007
The new economics - Post 9
The Age of Information rises … and we fall.
O.K., let’s play around with the concepts of the marketplace that may or may not undergird our economic theories. (I’m planning to take an economics course at Montclair State University this fall—I’ll keep you informed of my progress toward that goal.)
Suppose we have a village market where first thing in the morning grain sellers set up to exchange grain with goat milk sellers for goat milk. We could have phrased that as grain buyers come to exchange their wares with grain sellers for grain, and goat milk buyers come to exchange their wares with goat milk sellers for goat milk. As the day wears (is that a pun, or what?) on (as well as my exploration of economics), more sellers and buyers will appear in the village market.
Let’s say that we have three (3) grain sellers and three (3) goat milk sellers mingling into the early morning scene.
A grain seller arrives before dawn and sets up as the solitary vendor in the marketplace. Let’s assume that he has arrived early because he has some experience with this market and knows when to be first.
Even in this simple situation we begin to see the complexity of the decisions feeding into the strategies for selling and buying. What will this seller ask for in exchange for, say, a bushel of grain? What will he/she be thinking? Most likely it will be, “How can I get the most goat milk for my grain? But I only need so much goat milk. More than that, and it will be wasted. Less than that, and I will not have enough to feed my family the goat milk they need to stay healthy.”
Beyond that the grain seller will have some knowledge of whether or not there has been a good or bad crop of grain for the current market, and whether or not there is more or less than enough goat milk to meet the needs of all who would buy it.
And beyond THAT is the biological drive for status in group behavior. There is status value in being the top/best seller/buyer … which in the market is identified with wealth acquired from one’s transactions in the market. And here enters the powerful motivation to gain advantage in the market … to gain control of some aspect of the “forces” shaping the market … such as information about future availability of marketable goods and services … which in today’s global economy, the advantage/disadvantage of nanoseconds in advance warning can mean millions and billions of profit/loss for sellers/buyers. (Any wonder the Bloomberg Box made him a billionaire?)
Where does this take us? Where HAS this taken us?
We have an elite earning humongous wealth through securing an information advantage. This is the “science” of economics … the gaining of advantage in now global markets through better, faster analysis of information about those markets.
Does it escape everyone that this amounts to a humongous “tax” on market transactions that is now being paid to “Western” financial elites? And that it could equally be paid to ANYONE ANYWHERE in the future as information technology shifts its center of gravity? And that it is the underlying goods and services brought to market that are the substantive wealth of a society? And that our brilliant “Western” economic idiots are GIVING away our substantive wealth in the relatively short-term self-interest pursuit of an advantage in information about the global market in which goods and services are exchanged?
More to come …
O.K., let’s play around with the concepts of the marketplace that may or may not undergird our economic theories. (I’m planning to take an economics course at Montclair State University this fall—I’ll keep you informed of my progress toward that goal.)
Suppose we have a village market where first thing in the morning grain sellers set up to exchange grain with goat milk sellers for goat milk. We could have phrased that as grain buyers come to exchange their wares with grain sellers for grain, and goat milk buyers come to exchange their wares with goat milk sellers for goat milk. As the day wears (is that a pun, or what?) on (as well as my exploration of economics), more sellers and buyers will appear in the village market.
Let’s say that we have three (3) grain sellers and three (3) goat milk sellers mingling into the early morning scene.
A grain seller arrives before dawn and sets up as the solitary vendor in the marketplace. Let’s assume that he has arrived early because he has some experience with this market and knows when to be first.
Even in this simple situation we begin to see the complexity of the decisions feeding into the strategies for selling and buying. What will this seller ask for in exchange for, say, a bushel of grain? What will he/she be thinking? Most likely it will be, “How can I get the most goat milk for my grain? But I only need so much goat milk. More than that, and it will be wasted. Less than that, and I will not have enough to feed my family the goat milk they need to stay healthy.”
Beyond that the grain seller will have some knowledge of whether or not there has been a good or bad crop of grain for the current market, and whether or not there is more or less than enough goat milk to meet the needs of all who would buy it.
And beyond THAT is the biological drive for status in group behavior. There is status value in being the top/best seller/buyer … which in the market is identified with wealth acquired from one’s transactions in the market. And here enters the powerful motivation to gain advantage in the market … to gain control of some aspect of the “forces” shaping the market … such as information about future availability of marketable goods and services … which in today’s global economy, the advantage/disadvantage of nanoseconds in advance warning can mean millions and billions of profit/loss for sellers/buyers. (Any wonder the Bloomberg Box made him a billionaire?)
Where does this take us? Where HAS this taken us?
We have an elite earning humongous wealth through securing an information advantage. This is the “science” of economics … the gaining of advantage in now global markets through better, faster analysis of information about those markets.
Does it escape everyone that this amounts to a humongous “tax” on market transactions that is now being paid to “Western” financial elites? And that it could equally be paid to ANYONE ANYWHERE in the future as information technology shifts its center of gravity? And that it is the underlying goods and services brought to market that are the substantive wealth of a society? And that our brilliant “Western” economic idiots are GIVING away our substantive wealth in the relatively short-term self-interest pursuit of an advantage in information about the global market in which goods and services are exchanged?
More to come …
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Kipling and the Gatling Gun ...
For those who take issue with my failure to correct my failing memory by actually looking everything up ... which, of course, is no excuse ... but this is an assemblage of ideas rather than a series of submissions for scholarly publication ... so I would light-heartedly suggest that y'all lighten up a tad!
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v05/0080.html
On the other hand, I should be amazed that ANYONE reads this stuff. Thankful? Well, I guess so ... as long as no one expects me to carry on a dialog with 'em.
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/Humanist/v05/0080.html
On the other hand, I should be amazed that ANYONE reads this stuff. Thankful? Well, I guess so ... as long as no one expects me to carry on a dialog with 'em.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Some thoughts looking forward to the 4th of July ...
The trajectory of the culture of these United States of America is that of one of our own 4th of July celebration rockets. We have reached our zenith and we are now exploding.
Another way of picturing us is as an economic engine that is running way above maximum safe rpm’s and is shaking apart.
The only question remaining is how much damage we will inflict on ourselves and others if we break up.
Greed is as ancient as squirrels hoarding nuts for winter, and can be rationalized in a myriad of ways. But human beings do not survive as solitary individuals. It is the manner in which we open the potential of the future to each new generation that they find the motivation to go forward, and move society with them.
Youth on the path to adulthood will seek those avenues that hold promise for them, at times even minute by minute. If the “straight and narrow” does not yield or hold the promise of yielding the results/goals their psyche desires/needs, many will find other routes—not all of them beneficial to society.
Certainly limiting access to alpha status by shrinking the identifying genetic markers to a smaller and smaller pool is self-defeating for the larger society. George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, is the perfect example of the severity of the damage that can be caused by limiting leadership to one family tree.
Looking at those cultures that have survived for millennia, we consistently find widespread opportunity across a wide segment of the society for those from even the lowest strata of that segment to reach positions of cultural leadership ... and the broader the opportunity throughout the society, the more dynamic the society.
Catholicism has long afforded the opportunity to the lowliest child to rise through the ranks to priesthood, bishop, cardinal, and even pope. The mosques of Islam are open to all, and the current recruitment into Al Qaeda through the “open to all male children” policy of the fundamentalist madrassas portends a momentum we have yet to even begin to counter.
In China the public schools offer academic opportunity to a wide swath of the population, a population that has more gifted members than we have total members—if we take the top 25 percentile as the gifted group. And we—instead—are curtailing academic opportunity on the basis of individual family income, and in fact excluding broad groups from any real opportunity to advance into “ordained” leadership, except as token representatives of their groups.
All trajectories have momentum, even societal ones. We have yet to begin to correct our current course governed by our individual self-interest as the highest good. I believe the explosion we are now experiencing will dramatically alter our course. The question is will we surrender to fear and pursue corporatist fascism, or will we re-exert our commitment to offering equal opportunity to the world’s diverse peoples and regain the breathtaking momentum of our birth as a nation, flawed as it was?
Another way of picturing us is as an economic engine that is running way above maximum safe rpm’s and is shaking apart.
The only question remaining is how much damage we will inflict on ourselves and others if we break up.
Greed is as ancient as squirrels hoarding nuts for winter, and can be rationalized in a myriad of ways. But human beings do not survive as solitary individuals. It is the manner in which we open the potential of the future to each new generation that they find the motivation to go forward, and move society with them.
Youth on the path to adulthood will seek those avenues that hold promise for them, at times even minute by minute. If the “straight and narrow” does not yield or hold the promise of yielding the results/goals their psyche desires/needs, many will find other routes—not all of them beneficial to society.
Certainly limiting access to alpha status by shrinking the identifying genetic markers to a smaller and smaller pool is self-defeating for the larger society. George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, is the perfect example of the severity of the damage that can be caused by limiting leadership to one family tree.
Looking at those cultures that have survived for millennia, we consistently find widespread opportunity across a wide segment of the society for those from even the lowest strata of that segment to reach positions of cultural leadership ... and the broader the opportunity throughout the society, the more dynamic the society.
Catholicism has long afforded the opportunity to the lowliest child to rise through the ranks to priesthood, bishop, cardinal, and even pope. The mosques of Islam are open to all, and the current recruitment into Al Qaeda through the “open to all male children” policy of the fundamentalist madrassas portends a momentum we have yet to even begin to counter.
In China the public schools offer academic opportunity to a wide swath of the population, a population that has more gifted members than we have total members—if we take the top 25 percentile as the gifted group. And we—instead—are curtailing academic opportunity on the basis of individual family income, and in fact excluding broad groups from any real opportunity to advance into “ordained” leadership, except as token representatives of their groups.
All trajectories have momentum, even societal ones. We have yet to begin to correct our current course governed by our individual self-interest as the highest good. I believe the explosion we are now experiencing will dramatically alter our course. The question is will we surrender to fear and pursue corporatist fascism, or will we re-exert our commitment to offering equal opportunity to the world’s diverse peoples and regain the breathtaking momentum of our birth as a nation, flawed as it was?
Monday, May 21, 2007
On free markets and free trade
Even dear Milty Friedman admitted before he passed on that there is no such thing as a "free" market ... and there certainly is no such thing as "free" trade.
It is hard to imagine any science resting on certain economics assumptions that are taken quite literally as gospel ... for instance, what if meteorologist ascribed the funnel shapes of tornadoes to "The Invisible Hand"? ... or physicists, the flowing of sand through a funnel falling into a perfect cone? ... or an ocean whirlpool?
Why is there no such thing as "free" in markets or trade? Because the underpinning of "free" markets and "free" trade is the pursuit of self-interest in each micro-transaction ... which can only work as long as there some sort of equality between the actors (those individuals [and corporations acting as indivduals] participating in the transactions) ... but the very nature of pursuing self-interest is to gain AND accumulate advantage ... and BECAUSE these individual actors are NEVER equal there will always be the gaining and accumulating of advantage.
And like my REAL scientist friends tell me: Duh!
It is hard to imagine any science resting on certain economics assumptions that are taken quite literally as gospel ... for instance, what if meteorologist ascribed the funnel shapes of tornadoes to "The Invisible Hand"? ... or physicists, the flowing of sand through a funnel falling into a perfect cone? ... or an ocean whirlpool?
Why is there no such thing as "free" in markets or trade? Because the underpinning of "free" markets and "free" trade is the pursuit of self-interest in each micro-transaction ... which can only work as long as there some sort of equality between the actors (those individuals [and corporations acting as indivduals] participating in the transactions) ... but the very nature of pursuing self-interest is to gain AND accumulate advantage ... and BECAUSE these individual actors are NEVER equal there will always be the gaining and accumulating of advantage.
And like my REAL scientist friends tell me: Duh!
On the nature of religion
Religion is a culture's narrative of existence that explains the "why" of the world around us.
Our narrative of existence began in our primordial past as a species with myths explaining the otherwise unexplainable that nonetheless required an explanation lest we be inhibited by fear of its recurrence. (Ref: The Power of Myth, by Joseph Campbell) Thus religion from its very inception encoded the possibility of hope, the power to instill courage in the face of mystery ... and the possibility of purpose for all that we experience, and that this purpose is inherently benevolent toward an end ... as the biblical teaching: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose." Romans 8:28 King James Version New Testament, http://www.blueletterbible.org/.
One of the substantive "civilizing" benefits of a religion is the instilling of fear of authority in children, allowing the wisdom of elders to replace the hormones of youth in selecting leadership. And this is a key element in being able to consider the religion as rational, that it makes sense to age groups from childhood through young adult. After that, the individual has been sufficiently co-opted as to render him/her as nonthreatening to the hierarchal structure of a society.
Reducing, even eliminating, the conflicts over sexual fulfillment became a cornerstone of the Abrahamic religions—the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—those claiming Abraham in their sacred history . We now know, of course, that they got it all wrong. Sexual desire is not a force of evil controlling our body, but rather the biochemistry of procreation, essentially disproving these religions' doctrine.
But whether or not someone such as myself who has been raised in a moral/ethical milieu of Western Civilization's Christianity BELIEVES the religion's doctrine, I am still "a fish in water" as to it mores and practices. I wear clothes covering my sexual and secretion organs and orifices. I do not engage in overt sexual activity nor do I urinate or defecate in public or settings other than those specifically designated for that purpose ... or where I am assured of the requisite level of privacy. I do not touch other people "inappropriately", nor do I indicate in any manner a sexual interest in another person in a setting where such behavior is considered inappropriate.
But then I try not to belch or fart in public, either ... or display gross eating habits, such as slurping my soup ... or other "negative" behavior habits, such as scratching my genitals or butt.
In other words, I am ... and as many of us are ... "housebroken" according to the mores of Western Civilization Christianity. Its narrative of existence is embedded in my psyche.
There are some philosophical considerations that I should note in this discussion. They are that all beliefs are speculations and these beliefs should be examined with rational skepticism. What I do know for certain is that I am aware of my experiencing, and that I experience my experiencing as a continuum of events in which the present came out of the past which is the same as saying the future will come out of the present. And what I experience is diverse in that it is not all the same.
The discussion continues ... I'll get back to you.
Our narrative of existence began in our primordial past as a species with myths explaining the otherwise unexplainable that nonetheless required an explanation lest we be inhibited by fear of its recurrence. (Ref: The Power of Myth, by Joseph Campbell) Thus religion from its very inception encoded the possibility of hope, the power to instill courage in the face of mystery ... and the possibility of purpose for all that we experience, and that this purpose is inherently benevolent toward an end ... as the biblical teaching: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose." Romans 8:28 King James Version New Testament, http://www.blueletterbible.org/.
One of the substantive "civilizing" benefits of a religion is the instilling of fear of authority in children, allowing the wisdom of elders to replace the hormones of youth in selecting leadership. And this is a key element in being able to consider the religion as rational, that it makes sense to age groups from childhood through young adult. After that, the individual has been sufficiently co-opted as to render him/her as nonthreatening to the hierarchal structure of a society.
Reducing, even eliminating, the conflicts over sexual fulfillment became a cornerstone of the Abrahamic religions—the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—those claiming Abraham in their sacred history . We now know, of course, that they got it all wrong. Sexual desire is not a force of evil controlling our body, but rather the biochemistry of procreation, essentially disproving these religions' doctrine.
But whether or not someone such as myself who has been raised in a moral/ethical milieu of Western Civilization's Christianity BELIEVES the religion's doctrine, I am still "a fish in water" as to it mores and practices. I wear clothes covering my sexual and secretion organs and orifices. I do not engage in overt sexual activity nor do I urinate or defecate in public or settings other than those specifically designated for that purpose ... or where I am assured of the requisite level of privacy. I do not touch other people "inappropriately", nor do I indicate in any manner a sexual interest in another person in a setting where such behavior is considered inappropriate.
But then I try not to belch or fart in public, either ... or display gross eating habits, such as slurping my soup ... or other "negative" behavior habits, such as scratching my genitals or butt.
In other words, I am ... and as many of us are ... "housebroken" according to the mores of Western Civilization Christianity. Its narrative of existence is embedded in my psyche.
There are some philosophical considerations that I should note in this discussion. They are that all beliefs are speculations and these beliefs should be examined with rational skepticism. What I do know for certain is that I am aware of my experiencing, and that I experience my experiencing as a continuum of events in which the present came out of the past which is the same as saying the future will come out of the present. And what I experience is diverse in that it is not all the same.
The discussion continues ... I'll get back to you.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Senator Hagel for President?
I think a run by Senator Hagel as an Independent from the heartland of America could be really, really good for we the people ... maybe shake things up a bit.
First some basics ...
The ruling power elite in our nation is made up of three main nodules ... and the current political struggles (since Truman?) are really about which nodule's power center is going to control the power of the federal government ... in a macro sense. (Don't ya just LUV those words like "macro"? I could just as well used, "generally speaking" ... but I didn't.)
There's international finance with the Clintons and the Rockefellers as their iconic politicos on one end ... and big oil with the Bushs et al on the other ... and smack dab in the center are the pharmaceuticals, insurance, automotive, and other.
The international finance group GAVE away our economic base under Clinton trying to get control of all the money in the world ... then big oil joined forces with the neocons (with like interests in controlling the Middle East) to capture the political enthusiasm of the Christian Right leading us to where we are now with the big oil group + neocons + Christian Right squandering our world leadership in Iraq trying to hang onto the oil ...
The future can clearly be seen: The Decline and Fall of the Great American Economy and Its World Leadership Status ... (Kevin Phillips will shorten the title when he writes the book.)
Right now we seem to be hanging onto the idea that we gotta be the leader ... 'cuz why? ... 'cuz we still have the most nukes ... and that means God is on our side, right?
But when it all comes crashing down ... whenever China no longer needs our markets to REALLY get control of both the money and the oil 'cuz it is investing in its people ... our power elite will blame it on us, the people.
(And you know, in a way, the power elite will be right?)
So I think a run by Senator Hagel to help shake this all up BEFORE hand, would be a good thing ... don't you think?
Friday, May 11, 2007
A political tsunami is headed here ...
Factoid Numero Uno: Secure access to Middle East oil aka energy resources is a strategic objective of the United States warranting the use of military force to maintain. Neither Republicans NOR Democrats will give that up, unless ...
And this is what has the power elite of this country worried ... like in DEEPLY concerned ... that the incompetence of Bush 43 resulting in the unconscionable loss of blood and treasure PLUS the psychopathic political tactics of Karl Rove resulting in the assault on our constitutional form of government ... have so aroused the anger and dismay of we the people that we are going to rush to the exits, overturning everything the corporatists have built since WWII.
The power elite has felt the first real tremors of a huge earthquake deep in the populace ... and rightly fear a tsunami that well sweep away their control.
We could be in for a real democratic revolution come November 2008 if we the people don't blink ... or get confused by pseudo small "d" democrats like Hillary.
Watch General Batiste on Keith Olbermann:
http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=263&Itemid=69
And this is what has the power elite of this country worried ... like in DEEPLY concerned ... that the incompetence of Bush 43 resulting in the unconscionable loss of blood and treasure PLUS the psychopathic political tactics of Karl Rove resulting in the assault on our constitutional form of government ... have so aroused the anger and dismay of we the people that we are going to rush to the exits, overturning everything the corporatists have built since WWII.
The power elite has felt the first real tremors of a huge earthquake deep in the populace ... and rightly fear a tsunami that well sweep away their control.
We could be in for a real democratic revolution come November 2008 if we the people don't blink ... or get confused by pseudo small "d" democrats like Hillary.
Watch General Batiste on Keith Olbermann:
http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=263&Itemid=69
Thursday, May 03, 2007
You can't make this stuff up!
Gonzales and Wolfowitz ... and how many before those two? Like, "Heckuva job, Brownie."
Bush says, "I'm the commander guy."
You can't make this stuff up!
If you line up mug shots of Karl Rove, Kyle Sampson, and Tim Griffin (with his glasses on) and you get three peas in a pod of pudgy buddies.
I mean, c'mon, folks!
They were politicizing the JUSTICE Department ... and what was the Republican response? It's done all the time!
Gimme a break!
We need to get out the "Impeach Bleach" and clean the rot out of the Bush 43 administration. We may be holding our noses now, but at this rate we will be gagging and retching at the stench by January, 2009, when the new president takes over ... if we don't clean the mess up.
Bush says, "I'm the commander guy."
You can't make this stuff up!
If you line up mug shots of Karl Rove, Kyle Sampson, and Tim Griffin (with his glasses on) and you get three peas in a pod of pudgy buddies.
I mean, c'mon, folks!
They were politicizing the JUSTICE Department ... and what was the Republican response? It's done all the time!
Gimme a break!
We need to get out the "Impeach Bleach" and clean the rot out of the Bush 43 administration. We may be holding our noses now, but at this rate we will be gagging and retching at the stench by January, 2009, when the new president takes over ... if we don't clean the mess up.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
The new economics - Post 8
Globalization: a ploy to reduce the cost of labor
Labor rights are a major issue in globalization and expose the brilliant idiocy of many global economists. Globalization for them is—among other things—a ploy to reduce the cost of labor in the industrialized west.
The irrational nature of this ploy pertaining to labor in the current conventional wisdom on global economics is exposed by the rational concept that equilibrium is reached between two or more fluid materials/situations (multiple transactions in bounded settings) at the LOWEST level IF the pull of "gravity" is toward the lowest level achievable, i.e. lowest cost.
Lowest cost is the "gravity" of the individual transaction or microeconomic event because the "buyer" is the actor—the individual who decides whether or not to act (or buy)—and given the opportunity to get more or less of the same thing for a given "price" will rationally choose to get more, i.e., buy at a lower price.
Think of it as two barrels filled with fluid and kept separate for a time. One fills up faster than the other. Now, connect them so they can reach equal levels ... it is patently obvious that the higher one will come down. Now think of the one that had the higher level as a 55 gallon drum and the one that had the lower level as a 5500 gallon tank ... the previous higher level is going to come WAY down.
Does anyone really wonder what is happening between the United States and China regarding workers’ wages?
Labor is more than just a commodity. It is how we think about ourselves and how we connect to our communities and make our contribution. We have a right to be treated fairly and equitably.
If we treat our labor simply as a commodity, simply to be purchased rationally at the lowest possible price, we effectively erode our society. This is because we do not have a system for updating the costs of maintaining the worker above the basics of minimum food, shelter, and clothing. Our current mechanism of determining the cost of labor on the global market, drives it down to slave wages, or the cost of having a human mule.
We need to move forward to a new understanding of how markets work. Old theories are out of date ... both free market capitalism and central control socialism.
Labor rights are a major issue in globalization and expose the brilliant idiocy of many global economists. Globalization for them is—among other things—a ploy to reduce the cost of labor in the industrialized west.
The irrational nature of this ploy pertaining to labor in the current conventional wisdom on global economics is exposed by the rational concept that equilibrium is reached between two or more fluid materials/situations (multiple transactions in bounded settings) at the LOWEST level IF the pull of "gravity" is toward the lowest level achievable, i.e. lowest cost.
Lowest cost is the "gravity" of the individual transaction or microeconomic event because the "buyer" is the actor—the individual who decides whether or not to act (or buy)—and given the opportunity to get more or less of the same thing for a given "price" will rationally choose to get more, i.e., buy at a lower price.
Think of it as two barrels filled with fluid and kept separate for a time. One fills up faster than the other. Now, connect them so they can reach equal levels ... it is patently obvious that the higher one will come down. Now think of the one that had the higher level as a 55 gallon drum and the one that had the lower level as a 5500 gallon tank ... the previous higher level is going to come WAY down.
Does anyone really wonder what is happening between the United States and China regarding workers’ wages?
Labor is more than just a commodity. It is how we think about ourselves and how we connect to our communities and make our contribution. We have a right to be treated fairly and equitably.
If we treat our labor simply as a commodity, simply to be purchased rationally at the lowest possible price, we effectively erode our society. This is because we do not have a system for updating the costs of maintaining the worker above the basics of minimum food, shelter, and clothing. Our current mechanism of determining the cost of labor on the global market, drives it down to slave wages, or the cost of having a human mule.
We need to move forward to a new understanding of how markets work. Old theories are out of date ... both free market capitalism and central control socialism.
Mind mirrors matter
There you have it, the mind mirrors matter. Actually, life mirrors non-life.
In the orderly recurrence of relational events, life is able to establish itself as the effect of these orderly recurring relational events, becoming a bounded set of same ... a lifeform.
Mind then becomes the etching of same as if a stylus was recording the contours of a figure on a drawing ... the etching of events within and without the boundary of the lifeform ... within the lifeform in a manner in which they can be "remembered" ... which is to say, the etchings can be retraced.
More to come ...
In the orderly recurrence of relational events, life is able to establish itself as the effect of these orderly recurring relational events, becoming a bounded set of same ... a lifeform.
Mind then becomes the etching of same as if a stylus was recording the contours of a figure on a drawing ... the etching of events within and without the boundary of the lifeform ... within the lifeform in a manner in which they can be "remembered" ... which is to say, the etchings can be retraced.
More to come ...
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The new economics - Post 7
Does free trade and globalization work? Depends on the objective. Are we talking amassing owned wealth for the few or creating a resource-rich community of nations for the many?
One thing it does NOT do is preserve higher labor costs for work that can be performed somewhere else at a lower labor cost. But, you might say, that is rational. But, I would counter, it is not rational if rationally determined ethical values (labor rights) regulate one labor source and laissez-faire values regulate the competing source of labor. Slavery, child labor, or 72 hour work weeks should not be options for civilized trading partners. (For that matter, neither should global pollution be an option.)
Another point—it would seem to me—is that in a fluid situation where a commodity such as labor cost is free to flow between disparate settings, equilibrium will be achieved at the lowest common level ... all else being equal. Here the "gravity" factor is the tendency for the buyer of a commodity to seek the lowest price ... all else being equal.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how Democrats let Bill Clinton pursue globalization, giving up our market leverage that could have been applied to rational labor rights and environmental regulations in the trade agreements. Except that Bill was never a democrat (small "d") but rather a moderate (Rockefeller) Republican.
One thing it does NOT do is preserve higher labor costs for work that can be performed somewhere else at a lower labor cost. But, you might say, that is rational. But, I would counter, it is not rational if rationally determined ethical values (labor rights) regulate one labor source and laissez-faire values regulate the competing source of labor. Slavery, child labor, or 72 hour work weeks should not be options for civilized trading partners. (For that matter, neither should global pollution be an option.)
Another point—it would seem to me—is that in a fluid situation where a commodity such as labor cost is free to flow between disparate settings, equilibrium will be achieved at the lowest common level ... all else being equal. Here the "gravity" factor is the tendency for the buyer of a commodity to seek the lowest price ... all else being equal.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how Democrats let Bill Clinton pursue globalization, giving up our market leverage that could have been applied to rational labor rights and environmental regulations in the trade agreements. Except that Bill was never a democrat (small "d") but rather a moderate (Rockefeller) Republican.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
HuffPo comments for Tuesday, April 17
French Intelligence Warned CIA Of Al-Qaeda Hijack Plot In Early '01
"Everyone knew that something was cooking, that these people were preparing something big and spectacular," Alain Chouet, former chief of the security intelligence service at the DGSE, told AP. "Our American colleagues knew, our European colleagues knew, everyone did. But nobody had a hint it would happen inside the United States _ on the contrary."
Excuse me, but you might say there was a hint contained in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States." After which President Bush told the briefer, "Okay, you have covered your a--." I guess the French intelligence was just one more clue ignored. No wonder Condi Rice, then National Security Advisor, was scheduled to give a major speech on September 11, 2001, on the urgent need for a ballistic missile defense. Of course, that speech never happened.
By: GabrielOak on April 16, 2007 at 06:39pm
And remembering back to the summer of '01 and the military-industrial hype for the ballistic missile defense system(shield) ... then considering the "Shock and Awe" strategy of "rapid dominance" ... plus ... and ... plus ... and we can see the picture that here is a group of brilliant idiots whose only reality is their own delusions of alpha-hood.
I'm going to have watch DR. STRANGELOVE again ... I'm getting the creepy feeling that the neocons stole the script without giving proper credit.
By: hglindquist on April 17, 2007 at 09:45am
"Everyone knew that something was cooking, that these people were preparing something big and spectacular," Alain Chouet, former chief of the security intelligence service at the DGSE, told AP. "Our American colleagues knew, our European colleagues knew, everyone did. But nobody had a hint it would happen inside the United States _ on the contrary."
Excuse me, but you might say there was a hint contained in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States." After which President Bush told the briefer, "Okay, you have covered your a--." I guess the French intelligence was just one more clue ignored. No wonder Condi Rice, then National Security Advisor, was scheduled to give a major speech on September 11, 2001, on the urgent need for a ballistic missile defense. Of course, that speech never happened.
By: GabrielOak on April 16, 2007 at 06:39pm
And remembering back to the summer of '01 and the military-industrial hype for the ballistic missile defense system(shield) ... then considering the "Shock and Awe" strategy of "rapid dominance" ... plus ... and ... plus ... and we can see the picture that here is a group of brilliant idiots whose only reality is their own delusions of alpha-hood.
I'm going to have watch DR. STRANGELOVE again ... I'm getting the creepy feeling that the neocons stole the script without giving proper credit.
By: hglindquist on April 17, 2007 at 09:45am
Monday, April 09, 2007
How are we absurd? Let me count another way ... Post 2
Imus slanders the Rutgers women's basket ball team on MSNBC ... and keeps his job as of today.
A little six year old black girl is arrested and booked as a felon in Florida ...
We have become absurd ...
Don Imus has apologized�and has put his apology at the top of his web site�for calling the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" after they lost in the NCAA finals.
Just when it didn't seem possible, Imus, host of MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," managed to reach a new low. While discussing the NCAA women's basketball game between Rutgers University and the University of Tennessee, Imus openly described the team, which has eight black and two white women on it, as "nappy-headed hos" after the show's producer, Bernard McGuirk, called the team "hardcore hos."
A little six year old black girl is arrested and booked as a felon in Florida ...
When 6-year-old Desre’e Watson threw a tantrum in her kindergarten class a couple of weeks ago she could not have known that the full force of the law would be brought down on her and that she would be carted off by the police as a felon.
But that’s what happened in this small, backward city in central Florida. According to the authorities, there were no other options.Bob Herbert
6-Year-Olds Under Arrest
April 9, 2007
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09herbert.htm
We have become absurd ...
Sunday, April 08, 2007
The new economics - Post 6
We should take what we have learned from Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism and move on to a new economics system based on a rational market.
What do I mean by a "rational" market? A rational understanding of the world typically means that we understand the cause and effect relationship of events. If the temperature of water drops below 0 degrees Centigrade/ 32 degrees Fahrenheit then the water freezes.
In a market in order to produce goods or services to sell or exchange, the producer/seller has to use a given set of resources and thereby incurs what should be the costs of bringing the goods and services to market. These "costs" are the "cause" of the "effect" of having goods or services to sell or exchange in a market. A market is rational to the extent that the costs (cause) are paid for out of the selling price (effect) of the market, as one factor.
We know from experience that the traditional market is not efficient in matching all costs incurred in producing given goods and services to the selling prices of those goods and services; and therefore some costs are left out of the current market price system (euphemistically called the free market or free price system). These costs not included are called "externalities". Examples of externalities are the cancer caused by second-hand cigarette smoke, the excavating and dumping of mountaintops into valleys and streams to get at coal seams in the mountains, and the dumping of dioxin in the Delaware and Hudson Rivers--to name but three.
It really doesn't take a rocket scientist of an economist to figure this stuff out, yet we have had these brilliant idiots foisting the benefits of free market globalization off on us unsuspecting laypersons at least since Eisenhower became president.
It doesn't take a higher level equation to prove the free market economists wrong, simple common sense will do. The key thread to pull on to unravel their gossamer theory is the concept of "The Invisible Hand". Anyone who abandons rational skepticism for some god-like mechanism has already identified themselves as a flim-flam faker in the post-enlightenment world. (Yes, I understand that's a little hard to swallow for some folks.)
Do we still believe that whirlpools or tornadoes are the work of an angry God? Do we believe that pouring sand through a funnel and having it fall into a cone shaped mound is the work of an Invisible Hand?
What is more, is the whirlpool the ocean? Is the tornado the sky?
What do I mean by a "rational" market? A rational understanding of the world typically means that we understand the cause and effect relationship of events. If the temperature of water drops below 0 degrees Centigrade/ 32 degrees Fahrenheit then the water freezes.
In a market in order to produce goods or services to sell or exchange, the producer/seller has to use a given set of resources and thereby incurs what should be the costs of bringing the goods and services to market. These "costs" are the "cause" of the "effect" of having goods or services to sell or exchange in a market. A market is rational to the extent that the costs (cause) are paid for out of the selling price (effect) of the market, as one factor.
We know from experience that the traditional market is not efficient in matching all costs incurred in producing given goods and services to the selling prices of those goods and services; and therefore some costs are left out of the current market price system (euphemistically called the free market or free price system). These costs not included are called "externalities". Examples of externalities are the cancer caused by second-hand cigarette smoke, the excavating and dumping of mountaintops into valleys and streams to get at coal seams in the mountains, and the dumping of dioxin in the Delaware and Hudson Rivers--to name but three.
It really doesn't take a rocket scientist of an economist to figure this stuff out, yet we have had these brilliant idiots foisting the benefits of free market globalization off on us unsuspecting laypersons at least since Eisenhower became president.
It doesn't take a higher level equation to prove the free market economists wrong, simple common sense will do. The key thread to pull on to unravel their gossamer theory is the concept of "The Invisible Hand". Anyone who abandons rational skepticism for some god-like mechanism has already identified themselves as a flim-flam faker in the post-enlightenment world. (Yes, I understand that's a little hard to swallow for some folks.)
Do we still believe that whirlpools or tornadoes are the work of an angry God? Do we believe that pouring sand through a funnel and having it fall into a cone shaped mound is the work of an Invisible Hand?
What is more, is the whirlpool the ocean? Is the tornado the sky?
Friday, April 06, 2007
Cheney as the Queen of Hearts ...
Cheney Reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam Link
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.
ALICE'S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND
by Lewis Carroll
THE QUEEN'S CROQUET-GROUND
A large rose-tree stood near the entrance of the garden: the roses growing on it were white, but there were three gardeners at it, busily painting them red. Alice thought this a very curious thing, and she went nearer to watch them, and just as she came up to them she heard one of them say, `Look out now, Five! Don't go splashing paint over me like that!'
`I couldn't help it,' said Five, in a sulky tone; `Seven jogged my elbow.'
On which Seven looked up and said, `That's right, Five! Always lay the blame on others!'
`You'd better not talk!'said Five. `I heard the Queen say only yesterday you deserved to be beheaded!'
`What for?' said the one who had spoken first.
`That's none of your business, Two!' said Seven.
`Yes, it is his business!' said Five, `and I'll tell him--it was for bringing the cook tulip-roots instead of onions.'
Seven flung down his brush, and had just begun `Well, of all the unjust things--' when his eye chanced to fall upon Alice, as she stood watching them, and he checked himself suddenly: the others looked round also, and all of them bowed low.
`Would you tell me,' said Alice, a little timidly, `why you are painting those roses?'
Five and Seven said nothing, but looked at Two. Two began in a low voice, `Why the fact is, you see, Miss, this here ought to have been a red rose-tree, and we put a white one in by mistake; and if the Queen was to find it out, we should all have our heads cut off, you know. So you see, Miss, we're doing our best, afore she comes, to--'
Do I have to tell anyone how much the Queen of Hearts reminds me Vice President Cheney?
Paint the white roses red ...
We have become absurd.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Comments on the War in Iraq ... Thursday, April 5
And we are supposed to continue the surge because General Petraeus knows what he is doing and he has confidence ... confidence in what? that the surge MIGHT work? That's the confidence of a general who wants another star and needs a ticket punch.
Petraeus has also said that there is NO military solution. So is this a training exercise for our field grade and higher officers?
I mean, what the hell is going on? The charge of the light brigade? Gallipoli? What delusion grips our brilliant idiots along with our plain old dumb ones as leaders to the point that we send ill-equipped, ill-prepared youth into battle?
At least if there were a draft there would be SOME kind of shared sacrifice ... but if the children of the rich and powerful had to go, we wouldn't be having this war would we?
The leaders our nation should be following are Congressmen Charles Rangel and John Murtha ... men who personally know what shared sacrifice in the time of war is all about.
...
A quote I like:
It was and still is absurd to think we could pacify Iraq with the size of occupation force we used. Generals Colin Powell, Eric Shinseki, and Anthony Zinni all said the same thing, to quote Zinni:
It is time we the people took our nation back.
Petraeus has also said that there is NO military solution. So is this a training exercise for our field grade and higher officers?
I mean, what the hell is going on? The charge of the light brigade? Gallipoli? What delusion grips our brilliant idiots along with our plain old dumb ones as leaders to the point that we send ill-equipped, ill-prepared youth into battle?
At least if there were a draft there would be SOME kind of shared sacrifice ... but if the children of the rich and powerful had to go, we wouldn't be having this war would we?
The leaders our nation should be following are Congressmen Charles Rangel and John Murtha ... men who personally know what shared sacrifice in the time of war is all about.
...
A quote I like:
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"I have been writing for some time now that we are absurd as a nation.-Voltaire.
It was and still is absurd to think we could pacify Iraq with the size of occupation force we used. Generals Colin Powell, Eric Shinseki, and Anthony Zinni all said the same thing, to quote Zinni:
"I think it was clear they underestimated what they were going to face in the aftermath of the war. They didn't have sufficient planning for some of the problems they would face in major reconstruction of a country so centrally controlled and dominated by one figure and also had control of the institutions."The generals who went along with the neocons' absurd wild-eyed dreams and schemes are not only responsible for the military debacle that has unfolded for more now more than four years but also for the atrocities of Abu Garib (for starters).
It is time we the people took our nation back.
The new economics - Post 5
Let's hear it for The Invisible Hand ...
Are you kidding me? Whatever happened to the concept of skeptical review of speculation ... and speculation is all that any belief really is. (What? Of course I am an existentialist. Why do you ask?)
Some background from wikipedia.com:
What is more, a market or price system just doesn't spring miraculously into existence. It arises, layer by layer, on an emerging system of economics within a community of people ... and while that foundation may seem permanent, it isn't. It needs to be renewed generation after generation by educating each new generation, by maintaining and enhancing infrastructure, by building on what we have without allowing the foundation to deteriorate. If these costs aren't paid, the system is not maintained and it collapses ... sooner or later.
It is this community system as a foundation that is the platform for individual performance. Even if "the sky's the limit", launching oneself from a swamp or a crumbling deck is not the best way to reach the sky.
The simple facts of people paying their bills on time, of obeying traffic laws so trucks can move goods, of sending their kids to school each day and all that goes with that effort ... and yes, even being willing to suffer the indignity of welfare rather than resort to robbery ... all this and more that people do in working to make a community work economically ... can dissolve into a Hobbesian jungle or an autocratic dictatorship before our very eyes if people lose faith in the ability of their community to provide economic justice, to be treat them fairly in return for their effort and commitment.
What do you think it is going to be like around here when people wake up to the fact that our brilliant idiots in charge of economic policy have given away our labor rights so they can live in mansions?
Note: My god, there are those who still think Clinton was a democrat (small "d")! He was and is a Rockefeller Republican. Get real, folks.
Are you kidding me? Whatever happened to the concept of skeptical review of speculation ... and speculation is all that any belief really is. (What? Of course I am an existentialist. Why do you ask?)
Some background from wikipedia.com:
The invisible hand is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to illustrate how those who seek wealth by following their individual self-interest, inadvertently stimulate the economy and assist society as a whole. In the general opinion, in The Wealth of Nations and other writings, Smith claims that, in capitalism, an individual pursuing his own good tends also to promote the good of his community, through a principle that he called “the invisible hand” of the market, which ensures that those activities most beneficial and efficient will naturally be those that are most profitable. The specific mechanism for this, Smith saw as being the free price system.The biggest problem with Adam Smith's conjecture is that there is no such thing as a "free price system" BECAUSE individuals are unwilling (under the dictum of the invisible hand to pursue self-interest) to give up any advantage that skews the market in their favor. In other words, they are unwilling to pay all the costs incurred in "earning" their profits. Economists call these costs left unpaid "externalities", and aptly so so because while they exist, they are external to the price system. For instance, cancer caused by second-hand cigarette smoke, or the digging up and dumping of mountaintops into valleys and streams below to get at coal seams, are externalities.
What is more, a market or price system just doesn't spring miraculously into existence. It arises, layer by layer, on an emerging system of economics within a community of people ... and while that foundation may seem permanent, it isn't. It needs to be renewed generation after generation by educating each new generation, by maintaining and enhancing infrastructure, by building on what we have without allowing the foundation to deteriorate. If these costs aren't paid, the system is not maintained and it collapses ... sooner or later.
It is this community system as a foundation that is the platform for individual performance. Even if "the sky's the limit", launching oneself from a swamp or a crumbling deck is not the best way to reach the sky.
The simple facts of people paying their bills on time, of obeying traffic laws so trucks can move goods, of sending their kids to school each day and all that goes with that effort ... and yes, even being willing to suffer the indignity of welfare rather than resort to robbery ... all this and more that people do in working to make a community work economically ... can dissolve into a Hobbesian jungle or an autocratic dictatorship before our very eyes if people lose faith in the ability of their community to provide economic justice, to be treat them fairly in return for their effort and commitment.
What do you think it is going to be like around here when people wake up to the fact that our brilliant idiots in charge of economic policy have given away our labor rights so they can live in mansions?
Note: My god, there are those who still think Clinton was a democrat (small "d")! He was and is a Rockefeller Republican. Get real, folks.
How are we absurd? Let me count another way ...
The corporate monopolists/neocons in control of our nation have abandoned the pursuit of self-criticism for the pursuit of self-interest. Self-interest trumps truth.
Bob Herbert, NY Times OpEd columnist, in his column today titled "Our Crumbling Foundation", writes:
Herbert continues:
ab·surd /æbˈsÉœrd, -ˈzÉœrd/ -adjective
1.utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 05 Apr. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absurd>.
Bob Herbert, NY Times OpEd columnist, in his column today titled "Our Crumbling Foundation", writes:
Blackouts, school buildings in advanced states of disrepair, decrepit highway and railroad bridges — the American infrastructure is growing increasingly old and obsolete. In addition to being an invitation to tragedy, this is a problem that is putting Americans at a disadvantage in the ever more competitive global economy.While seeking to dominate the globe, our brilliant idiots in charge have hollowed out our core in pursuit of personal wealth and power. They tell us they are doing this to keep America strong while weakening our foundation.
Herbert continues:
Felix Rohatyn, the investment banker who helped save New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970s, has been prominent among those trying to sound the infrastructure alarm. Along with former Senator Warren Rudman, he has been criticizing the government’s unwillingness to invest adequately in public transportation systems, water projects, dams, schools, the electrical grid, and so on.
...
“A modern economy needs a modern platform, and that’s the infrastructure,” Mr. Rohatyn said in an interview. “It has been shown that the productivity of an economy is related to the quality of its infrastructure. For example, if you don’t have enough schools to teach your kids, or your kids are taught in schools that have holes in the ceilings, that are dilapidated, they’re not going to be as educated and as competitive in a world economy as they need to be.”
ab·surd /æbˈsÉœrd, -ˈzÉœrd/ -adjective
1.utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 05 Apr. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absurd>.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Bush is the King of Hearts in wonderland
The emperor has no clothes ...
Bush 43 isn't King of the USA, he is the King of Hearts in Wonderland ... absurd ... where down is up, and up is down.
How did our great nation get to this point? It happened when our leaders abandoned skepticism in the pursuit of truth for the corporate monopolist/neocon dictum that the pursuit of self-interest trumps truth.
It isn't just Bush who is absurd. Look in the mirror, America.
We have plans for success for our children in preschool ... I mean the kind that plot out the steps to high-paying adult careers, for chrissakes!
And you think that's going to turn around anytime soon?
I repeat, we as a society have bought--hook, line, AND sinker (the perfect pun)--the corporate monopolist/neocon dictum that the pursuit of self-interest trumps the pursuit of truth.
We have abandoned skepticism toward both our understanding of "what is" AND our choices of "what ought to be" ... and in doing so we have become absurd.
Instead of listening to leaders like Congressman Charles Rangel and his concepts of governance taken from the New Testament Book of Matthew, we listen to the likes of Tim Russert who discusses the issues with an eye on ratings.
And worse ... We are the ones who sit glued to the tube watching the news of Anna Nicole Smith's death unfold. We are the ones who spend more time tracking the contestants on American Idol than the policy statements and records of our political candidates.
We are a combination of Rome with the circuses in the Coliseum and Nazi Germany with the fear of others. We are absurd.
Sadly, with the sell-out of labor rights in globalization, we drove off the cliff. Now we have nothing to support a renewal.
And we have no prophets to call us to repentance ... sack cloth and ashes don't wear well in the board room.
Bush 43 isn't King of the USA, he is the King of Hearts in Wonderland ... absurd ... where down is up, and up is down.
How did our great nation get to this point? It happened when our leaders abandoned skepticism in the pursuit of truth for the corporate monopolist/neocon dictum that the pursuit of self-interest trumps truth.
It isn't just Bush who is absurd. Look in the mirror, America.
We have plans for success for our children in preschool ... I mean the kind that plot out the steps to high-paying adult careers, for chrissakes!
And you think that's going to turn around anytime soon?
I repeat, we as a society have bought--hook, line, AND sinker (the perfect pun)--the corporate monopolist/neocon dictum that the pursuit of self-interest trumps the pursuit of truth.
We have abandoned skepticism toward both our understanding of "what is" AND our choices of "what ought to be" ... and in doing so we have become absurd.
Instead of listening to leaders like Congressman Charles Rangel and his concepts of governance taken from the New Testament Book of Matthew, we listen to the likes of Tim Russert who discusses the issues with an eye on ratings.
And worse ... We are the ones who sit glued to the tube watching the news of Anna Nicole Smith's death unfold. We are the ones who spend more time tracking the contestants on American Idol than the policy statements and records of our political candidates.
We are a combination of Rome with the circuses in the Coliseum and Nazi Germany with the fear of others. We are absurd.
Sadly, with the sell-out of labor rights in globalization, we drove off the cliff. Now we have nothing to support a renewal.
And we have no prophets to call us to repentance ... sack cloth and ashes don't wear well in the board room.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Some thoughts along the way
- I can think of only two absolutes.
1. There is more than one element making up the cosmos.
2. "What is" is the ground of "what will be" in the awareness of existence.
- Most of what we think we know should be examined with a great deal of skepticism.
- The problem with being too skeptical is not being willing to buy a ticket to Paris if we have never been there. Some faith in "hearsay" is necessary to live.
- How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were? Too much uncertainty results in anxiety, even fear.
- We are taught a narrative of existence from childhood on. To what extent are we able to question it before anxiety or fear are felt?
For example, say that as young children we are taught by the adults in our lives that Disney World, heaven, and hell all exist. Before we go to Disney World it is just the adults telling us it exists. Then we start planning to go there, and because we really believe it exists (have no doubt whatsoever because mommy and daddy told us and others confirm it), we get excited. Then we get there and it is everything and more than what they said it would be like. On the way home from Disney World Mommy and Daddy reaffirm that we are going to heaven if we believe in Jesus and to hell if we don't. Once that emotional marker is set in childhood, it's there for life.
While skepticism will in time alter rational speculations, the emotional element will always be there to be triggered by the skepticism. Because one has to doubt to be skeptical, and doubt alters faith, and our Christian religion teaches that it is faith that saves us ... and in a sense it is right because we act on our beliefs as in whether or not we believe the plane will actually fly.
Think for a moment what it would be like to be taught that dying as a warrior for God results in being awarded direct transport to heaven with a personal cornucopia of goodies provided on arrival ... but I digress.
The rational issue is getting from the aboriginal's spear to the Apollo program ... of getting from planet earth to the outreaches of the universe. In this process skepticism regarding currently accepted speculations is necessary.
Skepticism isn't necessary in itself, but if we are to create what we choose ought to be out of what is, then it is necessary to be skeptical ... both about what is and about what we choose ought to be.
Simply put, it is possible to destroy the world. But because it is possible doesn't mean it should be done. It is possible to burn a person to death, and it has been done. We have decided that is something we should no longer do on purpose as a penalty for heresy or committing a crime.
We now have diseases we can treat with medicine and medical science. There was a time when we relied on our faith in God.
Why are some choices considered moral or ethical choices and others aren't? What is a moral or ethical choice has changed across both time and cultures.
Anyway, some thoughts along the way.
1. There is more than one element making up the cosmos.
2. "What is" is the ground of "what will be" in the awareness of existence.
- Most of what we think we know should be examined with a great deal of skepticism.
- The problem with being too skeptical is not being willing to buy a ticket to Paris if we have never been there. Some faith in "hearsay" is necessary to live.
- How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were? Too much uncertainty results in anxiety, even fear.
- We are taught a narrative of existence from childhood on. To what extent are we able to question it before anxiety or fear are felt?
For example, say that as young children we are taught by the adults in our lives that Disney World, heaven, and hell all exist. Before we go to Disney World it is just the adults telling us it exists. Then we start planning to go there, and because we really believe it exists (have no doubt whatsoever because mommy and daddy told us and others confirm it), we get excited. Then we get there and it is everything and more than what they said it would be like. On the way home from Disney World Mommy and Daddy reaffirm that we are going to heaven if we believe in Jesus and to hell if we don't. Once that emotional marker is set in childhood, it's there for life.
While skepticism will in time alter rational speculations, the emotional element will always be there to be triggered by the skepticism. Because one has to doubt to be skeptical, and doubt alters faith, and our Christian religion teaches that it is faith that saves us ... and in a sense it is right because we act on our beliefs as in whether or not we believe the plane will actually fly.
Think for a moment what it would be like to be taught that dying as a warrior for God results in being awarded direct transport to heaven with a personal cornucopia of goodies provided on arrival ... but I digress.
The rational issue is getting from the aboriginal's spear to the Apollo program ... of getting from planet earth to the outreaches of the universe. In this process skepticism regarding currently accepted speculations is necessary.
Skepticism isn't necessary in itself, but if we are to create what we choose ought to be out of what is, then it is necessary to be skeptical ... both about what is and about what we choose ought to be.
Simply put, it is possible to destroy the world. But because it is possible doesn't mean it should be done. It is possible to burn a person to death, and it has been done. We have decided that is something we should no longer do on purpose as a penalty for heresy or committing a crime.
We now have diseases we can treat with medicine and medical science. There was a time when we relied on our faith in God.
Why are some choices considered moral or ethical choices and others aren't? What is a moral or ethical choice has changed across both time and cultures.
Anyway, some thoughts along the way.
Monday, April 02, 2007
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ...
If we the people can't have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth concerning how justice is pursued by the Bush 43 Administration ... then when can we have it?
I mean, if they won't tell us (truthfully, which means under oath for this gang) how and why citizens are hauled into court ... what is Bush 43 aka Shrub willing to tell us truthfully?
This has got nothing to do whether folks are Democrats or Republicans ... or at least it shouldn't. It's got everything whatsoever to do with the concept of justice being blind ... which is not supposed to be the three monkeys: speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil ... no matter what Bush and Gonzales try to foist off on us.
I mean, they have to be kidding, right?
Or are they really that dumb? ... like in, "it's the stupidity, stupid."
I mean, if they won't tell us (truthfully, which means under oath for this gang) how and why citizens are hauled into court ... what is Bush 43 aka Shrub willing to tell us truthfully?
This has got nothing to do whether folks are Democrats or Republicans ... or at least it shouldn't. It's got everything whatsoever to do with the concept of justice being blind ... which is not supposed to be the three monkeys: speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil ... no matter what Bush and Gonzales try to foist off on us.
I mean, they have to be kidding, right?
Or are they really that dumb? ... like in, "it's the stupidity, stupid."
Saturday, March 31, 2007
The new economics - Post 4
Concept: A community's wealth is not given to it by God. It arises out of the synergy of the community, comprising the efforts and mores of the community's people, including their leaders ... whose efforts and mores, by the way, may be in conflict with those of the people.
Concept: If a community's people contributes to the production of wealth by their efforts or by their adherence to the rules of the community, they have a rational right to a rationally proportionate share of that wealth. For example, if we expect people not to steal bread when they are hungry in a community with enough bread to go around, then we had better make sure everyone is fed. It is as simple as that. It is irrational to expect others to quietly go off and die so that I can keep eating.
Concept: Raising the broad foundation for sharing does not impose a limit on the height of the solitary pinnacle. It does, however, provide a firmer footing.
Concept: The United States of America has lost its way in the world and become absurd—economically, politically, ethically— BECAUSE we allow the corporate monopolists' dictum of self-interest to trump truth as an ethical value. We are in that situation of just having driven off the cliff and while not yet falling because the thrust of our forward progress still overcomes the pull of gravity, we cannot stay the course and the only change of course left is to crash. Make no mistake, the corporate monopolists in their greed—selling our birthright of core values that would guide us toward oughtness for a pot of porridge—are the root cause ... while the rest of us pray that we will win the lottery before it all comes crashing down.
Concept: If a community's people contributes to the production of wealth by their efforts or by their adherence to the rules of the community, they have a rational right to a rationally proportionate share of that wealth. For example, if we expect people not to steal bread when they are hungry in a community with enough bread to go around, then we had better make sure everyone is fed. It is as simple as that. It is irrational to expect others to quietly go off and die so that I can keep eating.
Concept: Raising the broad foundation for sharing does not impose a limit on the height of the solitary pinnacle. It does, however, provide a firmer footing.
Concept: The United States of America has lost its way in the world and become absurd—economically, politically, ethically— BECAUSE we allow the corporate monopolists' dictum of self-interest to trump truth as an ethical value. We are in that situation of just having driven off the cliff and while not yet falling because the thrust of our forward progress still overcomes the pull of gravity, we cannot stay the course and the only change of course left is to crash. Make no mistake, the corporate monopolists in their greed—selling our birthright of core values that would guide us toward oughtness for a pot of porridge—are the root cause ... while the rest of us pray that we will win the lottery before it all comes crashing down.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Thoughts on Bill and Hill(ary)
Bill and Hillary are card-carrying members of the political class that is in bondage to corporate monopolists seeking to make the normal pyramid of wealth distribution into an obelisk on the broad base of low-wage labor.
These are people who believe wealth is dispensed from above by God or an Invisible Hand, and not generated out of the synergy of the community producing goods and services for use and exchange in what should be a rational market.
As an aside: In this drive to amass wealth and power, it seems like our friends of the Judaic-Christian persuasion have forgotten the Biblical concept of Jubilee.
You know, the real wealth of a community is like the potential power in a compressed spring. What can be done if it is freed to work? That wealth resides in the health and education of the people. Leaders who do not understand this are Pharoahs building their tombs.
These are people who believe wealth is dispensed from above by God or an Invisible Hand, and not generated out of the synergy of the community producing goods and services for use and exchange in what should be a rational market.
As an aside: In this drive to amass wealth and power, it seems like our friends of the Judaic-Christian persuasion have forgotten the Biblical concept of Jubilee.
You know, the real wealth of a community is like the potential power in a compressed spring. What can be done if it is freed to work? That wealth resides in the health and education of the people. Leaders who do not understand this are Pharoahs building their tombs.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Regarding the fate of the eight ...
It's so darn simple ... If we the people don't have the right to know "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" about how justice is applied by our government, then why do we even bother calling ourselves a "government of the people by the people for the people"?
The Democrats and Republicans are NOT two Texas Junior High School football teams, for chrissake ... on whom we are keeping score ... except maybe in the minds of the emotionally stunted psychopaths in the White House.
Geez-lou-eeze, doesn't anyone know how to govern around here? (With apologies to Casey Stengel.)
The Democrats and Republicans are NOT two Texas Junior High School football teams, for chrissake ... on whom we are keeping score ... except maybe in the minds of the emotionally stunted psychopaths in the White House.
Geez-lou-eeze, doesn't anyone know how to govern around here? (With apologies to Casey Stengel.)
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Unemployment under 5%?
In today's (Thursday, March 15) NY Times, Bob Herbert writes:
The core of Herbert's column is that unemployment for large groups of black men is a third or more.
Our nation is living in such a deep state of denial regarding our economy that we have no realistic chance of turning it around for the common good before we crash.
We have become the Theater of the Absurd ... The Alice In Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass of industrialized nations ... because we call ourselves a Christian nation and we do not heed the demands of Christianity's core values:
Another theme from the book of Daniel in Old Testament that fits us is the story of the hand writting on the wall:
The national unemployment rate came in at 4.5 percent last week and was generally characterized as pretty good. But whatever universe those numbers came from, it was not the universe that black men live in.You can read the column, The Danger Zone if you have TimesSelect ... which I recommend if for only having regular access to Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman.
The core of Herbert's column is that unemployment for large groups of black men is a third or more.
Their employment histories are gruesome. Over the past few years, the percentage of black male high school graduates in their 20s who were jobless (including those who abandoned all efforts to find a job) has ranged from well over a third to roughly 50 percent. Those are the kinds of statistics you get during a depression.
For dropouts, the rates of joblessness are staggering. For black males who left high school without a diploma, the real jobless rate at various times over the past few years has ranged from 59 percent to a breathtaking 72 percent.
Our nation is living in such a deep state of denial regarding our economy that we have no realistic chance of turning it around for the common good before we crash.
We have become the Theater of the Absurd ... The Alice In Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass of industrialized nations ... because we call ourselves a Christian nation and we do not heed the demands of Christianity's core values:
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.Matthew 25:41-46 New Testament KJV, www.blueletterbible.org
Another theme from the book of Daniel in Old Testament that fits us is the story of the hand writting on the wall:
And this [is] the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.
This [is] the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.Daniel 5:25-28 Old Testament KJV, www.blueletterbible.org
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
It's the oil, stupid
Antonia Juhasz in her OpEd piece today in the NY Times, Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?, explains how the Bush 43 administration is working to open a substantial amount of Iraq's oil reserves "to international oil companies for a generation or more." Quoting her:
Iraq’s oil reserves — thought to be the second largest in the world — have always been high on the corporate wish list. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told a San Francisco audience, “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas — reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to.”
and ...
Iraqis may very well choose to use the expertise and experience of international oil companies. They are most likely to do so in a manner that best serves their own needs if they are freed from the tremendous external pressure being exercised by the Bush administration, the oil corporations — and the presence of 140,000 members of the American military.
Iraq’s five trade union federations, representing hundreds of thousands of workers, released a statement opposing the law and rejecting “the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, which would undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people.” They ask for more time, less pressure and a chance at the democracy they have been promised.
It's the oil, stupid.
Monday, March 12, 2007
The new economics - Post 3
We have turned our very persons into commodities: the accountant, the teacher, the mechanic, the doctor, the professional sports person, the lawyer, the CEO ... and so forth and so on ...
In a real sense we have stopped thinking of ourselves as human beings first: mother, father, lover, son, sibling, ... citizen, neighbor.
In so much of what we do we have internalized our obligation to enhance our own value as a commodity as much as possible. We have swallowed hook, line and sinker the concept that by giving ourselves the best shot at making the most money possible, we are choosing the best means of enhancing the common good. We select the "issues" and the "views" we will publicly support with a careful eye on their impact on our resume. God forbid that we would get arrested in a public demonstration! And dare we be seen at a protest rally ... about anything?
And how do we know if we have succeeded in maximizing our own value? By the wages package we "earn" as the market commodity we have converted ourselves into, of course.
In the process the whole endeavor has morphed into shortest, direct straight shot at getting the most money we can ... and skipping anything between that we can. Winning 100 milion or more in the lottery is the pinnacle of success.
And if we are going to apply ourselves at something, we justify it as a way to increase our earning power. Exercise, education, even repose and rest are not seen as enriching our lives as much as potentially enriching our wallets and purses. We even have the saying of the "trophy spouse" ... a relationship that is designed to make us better candidates for upward mobility in the wage ranks.
Need I tell you ... as the Biblical prophets told the Israelites ... that selling our birthright of humanity—the creative imagination to turn swords into plows, and selfishness into caring for others—will destroy us?
And that it takes generations—the sins of the fathers will be visited on his sons and his sons' sons (in the sexist language of the day)—to alter course?
And we have yet to experience the calamity that will get us to even think of changing course, let alone start the course correction?
The image is of driving full-speed off the cliff and not yet starting to fall ... in a state of denial.
In a real sense we have stopped thinking of ourselves as human beings first: mother, father, lover, son, sibling, ... citizen, neighbor.
In so much of what we do we have internalized our obligation to enhance our own value as a commodity as much as possible. We have swallowed hook, line and sinker the concept that by giving ourselves the best shot at making the most money possible, we are choosing the best means of enhancing the common good. We select the "issues" and the "views" we will publicly support with a careful eye on their impact on our resume. God forbid that we would get arrested in a public demonstration! And dare we be seen at a protest rally ... about anything?
And how do we know if we have succeeded in maximizing our own value? By the wages package we "earn" as the market commodity we have converted ourselves into, of course.
In the process the whole endeavor has morphed into shortest, direct straight shot at getting the most money we can ... and skipping anything between that we can. Winning 100 milion or more in the lottery is the pinnacle of success.
And if we are going to apply ourselves at something, we justify it as a way to increase our earning power. Exercise, education, even repose and rest are not seen as enriching our lives as much as potentially enriching our wallets and purses. We even have the saying of the "trophy spouse" ... a relationship that is designed to make us better candidates for upward mobility in the wage ranks.
Need I tell you ... as the Biblical prophets told the Israelites ... that selling our birthright of humanity—the creative imagination to turn swords into plows, and selfishness into caring for others—will destroy us?
And that it takes generations—the sins of the fathers will be visited on his sons and his sons' sons (in the sexist language of the day)—to alter course?
And we have yet to experience the calamity that will get us to even think of changing course, let alone start the course correction?
The image is of driving full-speed off the cliff and not yet starting to fall ... in a state of denial.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
It's time to impeach Bush/Cheney!
To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
It is time to impeach.
By John Nicols, March 7, 2007, in The Nation
Here's the Middlebury, Vermont, resolution:
We the people have the power -- and the responsibility -- to remove executives who transgress not just the law, but the rule of law.
The oaths that the President and Vice President take binds them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The failure to do so forms a sound basis for articles of impeachment.
The President and Vice President have failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" in the following ways:
1. They have manipulated intelligence and misled the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
2. They have directed the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
3. They have conspired to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
4. They have ordered the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention -- all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.
When strong evidence exists of the most serious crimes, we must use impeachment -- or lose the ability of the legislative branch to compel the executive branch to obey the law.
George Bush has led our country to a constitutional crisis, and it is our responsibility to remove him from office.
Pass it on!
"Attacks on Iraq Shiite Pilgrims Continue" ... Dah!
Quoting Lauren Frayer's AP article, March 7, 2007, posted on www.huffingtonpost.com:
My comment in response:
Our absurd leadership has once again altered the dynamics of the conflict without adequately preparing for the predictable results.
We do not have and never have had and now never will have enough boots on the ground to control the insurgency ... like not being able squeeze the entire balloon, so it pops out wherever there is a lack of pressure ...
So saying we are doing the best we can as people are being killed is absurd especially when what we have done and are still doing is creating the ground of the violence in which they are being killed.
And all this so some general (Petreus) can get his "battlefield command experience" and keep his career on track? 'Cuz if he told the truth--according to his own criteria for fighting an insurgency--and said, "Y'know, this ain't gonna work," he would be canned.
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Attacks on Shiite pilgrims showed no sign of easing Wednesday with at least 11 people killed by bombs and gunfire as they streamed toward a Muslim shrine ahead of a weekend holiday.
The targeted violence came a day after two suicide bombers exploded themselves among pilgrims lining up at a checkpoint, killing at least 120 people and wounding about 190, police and hospital officials said.
My comment in response:
Our absurd leadership has once again altered the dynamics of the conflict without adequately preparing for the predictable results.
We do not have and never have had and now never will have enough boots on the ground to control the insurgency ... like not being able squeeze the entire balloon, so it pops out wherever there is a lack of pressure ...
So saying we are doing the best we can as people are being killed is absurd especially when what we have done and are still doing is creating the ground of the violence in which they are being killed.
And all this so some general (Petreus) can get his "battlefield command experience" and keep his career on track? 'Cuz if he told the truth--according to his own criteria for fighting an insurgency--and said, "Y'know, this ain't gonna work," he would be canned.
Bush, Cheney, & the Neocons aka The Theater of the Absurd
Quoting from Tom Friedman's column in today's—Wenesday, March 7—NY Times, titled, "Don't Ask, Don't Know, Don't Help", regarding scenes from our own Theater of the Absurd:
"Mr. Bush summoned the country to D-Day and prepared the Army, the military health system, military industries and the American people for the invasion of Grenada."
and ...
"In an interview last Jan. 16, Jim Lehrer asked President Bush why, if the war on terrorism was so overwhelmingly important, he had never asked more Americans 'to sacrifice something.' Mr. Bush gave the most unbelievable answer: 'Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.'"
This ain't funny, folks. Our best and brightest working class youth are being devoured while the wealthy get tax breaks. Like the late Moll Ivins would ask, "How come we aren't in the streets at least making noise?!"
"Mr. Bush summoned the country to D-Day and prepared the Army, the military health system, military industries and the American people for the invasion of Grenada."
and ...
"In an interview last Jan. 16, Jim Lehrer asked President Bush why, if the war on terrorism was so overwhelmingly important, he had never asked more Americans 'to sacrifice something.' Mr. Bush gave the most unbelievable answer: 'Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.'"
This ain't funny, folks. Our best and brightest working class youth are being devoured while the wealthy get tax breaks. Like the late Moll Ivins would ask, "How come we aren't in the streets at least making noise?!"
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Libby found guilty!
Well, well, well ... now it's really going to get interesting ...
'Cuz the rule in the CYA crowd is that you start expecting to have your own ass protected when you cover the backside of the person ahead of you ... and Libby was good at his position in the daisy chain ...
So ... does he get a pardon? ... or ... does he out Cheney if he doesn't get a pardon?
I think he will hold strong, banking on the pardon. But I don't think the pardon is a sure thing ... Bush 43 has already started to put some distance between him (B43) and Cheney. This could allow B43 to start pinning the whole fiasco set on Cheney as the Darth Vader to the Emperor.
'Course Libby will stay out of jail on appeal ... so it will be awhile before the rubber hits the road ... but we have the elections of '08 coming up ... and something will have to be done to remove Libby as red meat ... so either the pardon will be done right away so it can get lost in all the other horror stories coming down the pike ... or it will have to wait for the twilight hours of the last day of B43's presidency and after the election ... but that's damn risky, 'cuz Libby will be hanging out there if he actually is out of prison ...
The gentlemanly thing for Libby to do would be to pop into prison sometime before the election and show he's a straight shooter for the boss (Cheney) and the Party ... thereby letting his negatives sorta die down ... then get his pardon for having served enough time.
'Course, I would love to see Libby rat out Cheney to avoid prison. Wouldn't that be fun?
Any way it goes, it's gonna be interesting ...
'Cuz the rule in the CYA crowd is that you start expecting to have your own ass protected when you cover the backside of the person ahead of you ... and Libby was good at his position in the daisy chain ...
So ... does he get a pardon? ... or ... does he out Cheney if he doesn't get a pardon?
I think he will hold strong, banking on the pardon. But I don't think the pardon is a sure thing ... Bush 43 has already started to put some distance between him (B43) and Cheney. This could allow B43 to start pinning the whole fiasco set on Cheney as the Darth Vader to the Emperor.
'Course Libby will stay out of jail on appeal ... so it will be awhile before the rubber hits the road ... but we have the elections of '08 coming up ... and something will have to be done to remove Libby as red meat ... so either the pardon will be done right away so it can get lost in all the other horror stories coming down the pike ... or it will have to wait for the twilight hours of the last day of B43's presidency and after the election ... but that's damn risky, 'cuz Libby will be hanging out there if he actually is out of prison ...
The gentlemanly thing for Libby to do would be to pop into prison sometime before the election and show he's a straight shooter for the boss (Cheney) and the Party ... thereby letting his negatives sorta die down ... then get his pardon for having served enough time.
'Course, I would love to see Libby rat out Cheney to avoid prison. Wouldn't that be fun?
Any way it goes, it's gonna be interesting ...
The new economics - Post 2
Today's—Tuesday, March 6, 2007—Star-Ledger carried an article by Amy Ellis Nutt, Star-Ledger staff, titled, "Study: Canned food has toxic chemical".
Here's the lead paragraphs:
"A plastic ingredient used to line many kinds of food and drink cans may be poisoning pregnant women and infants, according to study commissioned by an environmental advocacy organization.
"Cans of commonly eaten goods, such as soup, fruit, vegetables and soda, were found to contain more than 200 times the acceptable level of bisphenol-A, the study says. BPA is a plastic resin repeatedly linked to a host of health problems including breast and prostate cancer, infertility, diabetes, obesity and asthma."
This is how the so-called "free" market protects us by letting us pay the costs of the mistakes of those who gain the profits.
Why doesn't anyone or any entity have to prove the benign nature of the substances they introduce into our environment? Yes, I can understand the failures of past ignorance ... BUT we have known for some time that a wide array of substances can have harmful effects ... and we STILL have powerful folks trotting out the province of the Invisible Hand as the best caretaker of the common good.
Don't get me wrong, the market can exert a powerful influence for the common good ... but there is nothing absurd about setting rational rules to dampen its obvious harmful excesses. We can simply observe the differences between major league baseball and major league football to learn that concept. I mean George Steinbrenner and the Yankees are grotesque, don't you think?
Here's the lead paragraphs:
"A plastic ingredient used to line many kinds of food and drink cans may be poisoning pregnant women and infants, according to study commissioned by an environmental advocacy organization.
"Cans of commonly eaten goods, such as soup, fruit, vegetables and soda, were found to contain more than 200 times the acceptable level of bisphenol-A, the study says. BPA is a plastic resin repeatedly linked to a host of health problems including breast and prostate cancer, infertility, diabetes, obesity and asthma."
This is how the so-called "free" market protects us by letting us pay the costs of the mistakes of those who gain the profits.
Why doesn't anyone or any entity have to prove the benign nature of the substances they introduce into our environment? Yes, I can understand the failures of past ignorance ... BUT we have known for some time that a wide array of substances can have harmful effects ... and we STILL have powerful folks trotting out the province of the Invisible Hand as the best caretaker of the common good.
Don't get me wrong, the market can exert a powerful influence for the common good ... but there is nothing absurd about setting rational rules to dampen its obvious harmful excesses. We can simply observe the differences between major league baseball and major league football to learn that concept. I mean George Steinbrenner and the Yankees are grotesque, don't you think?
Friday, March 02, 2007
Hillary, dillary ... is going down the drain
Hillary enlists Bill to try to halt her campaign from going down the proverbial tubes. It may get a blip, but it won't change the outcome ... and that's because Hillary has so many visceral negatives she never will be elected President ... and MOST real small "d" democrats know this.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The good ol' USA as the Theater of the Absurd
The USA as theater of the absurd ... where down is up ... the Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass effect.
The latest two examples are (1) sending properly trained and equipped troops is somehow NOT supporting the troops, and (2) the problems—in this case Building 18 at Walter Reed Hospital—the military faces are the result of the grunts as a few bad apples ... or the media not focusing on the positive issues of the day.
This is continuing evidence of the mantra that I best serve the common good by serving my own self-interest. You know, the world where the common good is guided by the Invisible Hand ...
Seems I remember an old story—one that the neocon idiots should be familiar with since it comes from the Old Testament—about the harm that is done by selling one's birthright (core values) for porridge (personal benefit).
"These people" at the top are tripping all over themselves to preserve their personal perks ...
The other iconic image of our generation is Thelma and Louise driving off the cliff ... with a little twist to the motivation, I can picture us having shot off the proverbial cliff ... and because we are still flying, we think we are doing great.
Maybe these grand leaders should study history. It ain't the working class that gets led to the guillotine when comes the revolution ... like when we crash.
Our biggest worry will be to avoid some fascist bastard promising to save us from ourselves.
The latest two examples are (1) sending properly trained and equipped troops is somehow NOT supporting the troops, and (2) the problems—in this case Building 18 at Walter Reed Hospital—the military faces are the result of the grunts as a few bad apples ... or the media not focusing on the positive issues of the day.
This is continuing evidence of the mantra that I best serve the common good by serving my own self-interest. You know, the world where the common good is guided by the Invisible Hand ...
Seems I remember an old story—one that the neocon idiots should be familiar with since it comes from the Old Testament—about the harm that is done by selling one's birthright (core values) for porridge (personal benefit).
"These people" at the top are tripping all over themselves to preserve their personal perks ...
The other iconic image of our generation is Thelma and Louise driving off the cliff ... with a little twist to the motivation, I can picture us having shot off the proverbial cliff ... and because we are still flying, we think we are doing great.
Maybe these grand leaders should study history. It ain't the working class that gets led to the guillotine when comes the revolution ... like when we crash.
Our biggest worry will be to avoid some fascist bastard promising to save us from ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)